Zomojo Pty Ltd v Hurd (No 5) [2014] FCA 537

Zomojo Pty Ltd v Hurd (No 5) [2014] FCA 537

The respondents (specified in the charges) were proven beyond reasonable doubt to have deliberately and voluntarily contravened paragraphs 12 and 14–21 of the orders made by Gordon J on 5 February 2013, as established through admissions in their affidavits and available evidence. Breach of inter partes undertakings...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Contempt Proceeding / Interlocutory (findings on Contempt, Directions for Penalty Hearing)
Outcome
Charges of contempt for breach of paragraphs 12 and 14–21 found proven against relevant respondents beyond reasonable doubt; charge of contempt regarding breach of undertaking dismissed; penalty hearing directions given.
Legal Topics
['contempt of Court' 'breach of Court Orders' 'undertakings' 'admissibility of Affidavit Evidence' 'privilege Against Self Incrimination']
['civil Procedure' 'equity' 'corporate Law' 'evidence'] ['contempt of Court' 'breach of Court Orders' 'undertakings' 'admissibility of Affidavit Evidence' 'privilege Against Self Incrimination']

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Contempt Proceeding / Interlocutory (findings on Contempt, Directions for Penalty Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether specified respondents committed contempt of court by breaching paragraphs 12 and 14-21 of orders made by Gordon J on 5 February 2013' 'Whether breach of inter partes undertakings is enforceable as contempt' 'Whether specified respondents aided and abetted the breach of undertakings and orders' 'Whether affidavit material contained admissible admissions and whether privilege against self-incrimination applied' 'Whether the evidentiary requirements and procedural rules for contempt had been met']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents (specified in the charges) were proven beyond reasonable doubt to have deliberately and voluntarily contravened paragraphs 12 and 14–21 of the orders made by Gordon J on 5 February 2013, as established through admissions in their affidavits and available evidence. Breach of inter partes undertakings by Mr Matthew Hurd, however, was not a contempt. The evidentiary objections were rejected, admissions were admitted per statute, and privilege against self-incrimination could not be claimed post-filing. Directions for further step toward penalty hearing were given.

Court Disposition

Charges of contempt for breach of paragraphs 12 and 14–21 found proven against relevant respondents beyond reasonable doubt; charge of contempt regarding breach of undertaking dismissed; penalty hearing directions given.

Orders

  • ['The hearing of the contempt motions be stood over to 10:15 am on 22 July 2014.' 'On or before 5:00 pm on 1 July 2014 the respondents file and serve any affidavits for the penalty hearing and an outline of written submissions.' 'On or before 5:00 pm on 15 July 2014 the applicants file and serve any answering...